don't forget to skip the avocado toast

ACA.

But it could have been better. Like ALL things done, they are never perfect, they are never everything I want because I'm not the only person in the country, but if it moves the needle in the right direction I support it.

Hmmm perhaps I wasn't totally clear. I have never claimed Kamala ran a great campaign. Or that her and the Dems did a great job engaging a very vocal part of the party concerned with what's happening in Gaza or the US's policy in Gaza.

I have however been attempting to consistently argue that 1) they had a LOT of other constituencies to court so it was never as simple as "Gaza policy bad = lost election; Gaza policy good = win election", 2) the general election protest vote (or abstention) is going to find out here fairly soon if their protest was worth it once Trump takes office and 3) That so far, Trumps rhetoric SINCE THE ELECTION, and his appointment choices are not giving great indications that he intends to do anything to stop the dying of innocents.

But we might just find out that the most recent developments concerning a cease fire agreement preempts us all Finding Out just what Trump might do in Gaza.

Not an apples to apples comparison of primary elections and general election. Regardless that isn't an argument against my point that an 11% undecided vote is hardly a "fairly significant public statement". The point you're addressing is if I said 11% hardly made a difference. Which I didn't.

I simply said their assertion was made in bad faith.

And we can probably agree to disagree on that. -Cheers and enjoy your Thanksgiving (if US based of course)

Sure I wish we had those votes, though I don't think "the gaza protest vote" would have won the election for Kamala if it went the other way. Way too many other reasons she lost.

I also hope you don't find yourself wishing you had those votes go to Kamala as well. Which is to say, I hope you don't realize the leopard has eaten your face, because that would mean the incoming administration actually enacting policy that moves the needle in the direction of less violence in Gaza.

We'll both find out the answer in the coming months if it was really worth it or not.

Moving past the joke of de-gendering a gendered colloquialism; yes I do agree with you on both of your points.

You're not wrong. But if you want to 1) eliminate any chance of assumed gender in "Boss" due to cultural history, and 2) have a little fun with moving the mark into the absurd, you'd appreciate what I'm saying.

I don't agree that 11% undecided in the primary is a "fairly significant public statement", I mean, literally 11% is like, you know, small. Nor does a lack of policy change during the election cycle (which has a lot more factors than just Gaza to consider) immediately mean Kamala wouldn't be open to changing tactics post election. But we'll never know because, like I said, Trump won and now we get to find out if voting for him was net good or net bad for the Gaza cause.

But I can appreciate the emotional investment you have in "both sides-ing" this and ignoring the material differences between a narcissist that is already talking about lifting arms restrictions to Israel and Kamala.

Weather you agree with me or not is immaterial. On the issue of both parties being the same, you're wrong. See how easy that is to say and it means nothing to an actual debate?

-Cheers

I didn't ask which has the different policy now (ignoring my opinion about the truth of your assertion) but which is most likely to be responsive to public opinion; and I'd add, which one actually cares about the plight of others and which is an unofficially diagnosed narcissist.

But I'm fairly certain we won't agree and sadly we'll never know what Kamala coulda/woulda done. But with trump we're about to Find Out. I hope we're both wrong about him.

Ah well then perhaps we agree more than we thought :) Cheers Mate!

oh crap did I [whoosh]? sorry.

In my defense, in this thread, that was way too easy to read with a snarky tone as it was with a sarcastic tone. But I can totally hear it now!

I'm not removing it as irrelevant from all things. I'm saying its irrelevant as part of a discussion for what other traits define many and/or are exclusively manly.

I'm not really sure what you're asking with ,"is your assertion that a woman or enby would use the word “manly” to describe and identity of being a responsible adult?"

For sure I'm not looking for a single authoritative definition. I am, in fact rejecting just about any definition or even the need for one. I am, at the end of my logic train, begging the question, "why does it even matter?" I certainly don't care if society deems me "a man" or "manly". I don't judge other people by such a rubric. I think society would be better off if we work to actively reject such notions since they lead to gatekeeping which is rarely helpful. All that matters is that I'm happy with who I am, within the bounds of whatever it means to also being good to other people.

Obviously that opinion means it will be very hard for someone to come up with examples of traits* that are actually really honestly unique to man/male-ness which a woman can't/won't/shouldn't also possess as part of being a good responsible person? I have yet to hear any. They ALL a equally true for a good person regardless of gender / gender identity.

*In this context I will concede the obvious biological function you've pointed out, while at the same time ignoring it as irrelevant because it can stand on it's own AND have no impact on the other traits being discussed. Just because someone "handles themselves like an adult and happens to be male" doesn't in mean it logically follows that handling oneself as an adult = male. Just like the equally valid sentence, "handles themselves like an adult and happens to be female" doesn't make handling oneself as an adult = female. They just mean you're a responsible adult and not an irresponsible child.

Exactly.

And the real irony is that of the two candidates, which one is most likely to respond to post-election pressure to adjust the policies?

Sure sure sure, Trump can be influenced by money and flattery, but the people that are going to pay and flatter him are not exactly the ones arguing to save the lives of innocent civilians.

So the irony remains, of the two candidates to choose from, the people complaining about what is happening in Gaza picked the one least likely to do anything helpful once elected ("do" as opposed to what they said to get elected).

Well like, that's just your opinion man.

The problem is you didn't just call out their shitty identity

Check the usernames. Someone that claims misandry as their identity,

you also tried to use it to negate their assertion

is just spreading it.

Or said another way, you made an ad hominem attack and I called you YOU out on it.

[face palm] I haven't seen that movie in a LOOOONG time.

I ignored it because I feel it's not germane to the topic at hand; and I have no argument with your assertion either as it pertains to what the biological role of a "man" is in reproduction. But biological functions are not part of the discussion of traits of, or imposed expectations of, feeling like a man.

I disagree that being someone who fills the "biological reproductive male role" has anything to do with being or needing to feel "manly". Since "manly" in my opinion is purely a cultural imposition. More so, any traits generally being mentioned in this whole thread are not exclusive to being a man, but of a good person.

From the rest of your reply though we'll just have to agree to disagree that the "biological reproductive male role" has any influence on the discussion of what it means when a man says "sometimes a man wants to feel like a man" or similar discussions about what it means to be a man, or to use your word "manly", because we'll probably disagree about what it means to BE manly. But I also don't concern myself with being manly so that might be the disconnect.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But as a testicle-American I can say the feeling is not universal.

But you need to imagine a context, or there's no conversation to be had because it makes now sense in a vacuum. In what world does anyone just say something like, "A man likes to feel like a man" without context?

You provided your own context which generally is about what you do for yourself. Though I'm slightly skeptical that you choose to do those things specifically in the context of "today I want to do something for myself that makes me feel like a man". You just do the things you like; full stop. But if I'm wrong, you do you, no judgement or kink-shaming ;-) I kid!

So in the more general context of debating what it means when someone says "A man likes to feel like a man" you have to wonder what drove them to say it and to whom. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume it was said in response to someone doing/not doing, or approving/disapproving of something the speaker associates with feeling like a man. And with that very generic context one has to ask, why is it someone else's responsibility to do/not do something to make someone feel like a man? And why does anyone's approval/disapproval impact someone else's sense of masculinity?

As for feeling useful, being relied upon, honouring responsibilities, how are those traits of being a man? I ask that in the context of, how are they not just traits of a good person. When someone doesn't do those things that doesn't make them not a man, it makes them not a good person full stop.

Those aren't traits of a man. Those are traits of a human. Both other than that, 100% agree a person needs that.